The link below has provided me a bit of entertainment over the last few days;

A 5.12 route was put up, head-pointed was the term used, 25 years ago. There was conjecture around whether or not the FA'ist actually should be able to claim the FFA as he supposedly didn't reach the anchors he'd rap bolted; fast forward 25 yrs to when a local (retro) bolted the climb and all hell breaks loose...

I appreciated that article. I reckon the retro-bolter had his heart in the right place and aside from not directly contacting the FA'ist to confirm whether or not it had been snagged as an FA, acted in good faith.

On 6/08/2013 Miguel75 wrote:>I appreciated that article. I reckon the retro-bolter had his heart in>the right place and aside from not directly contacting the FA'ist to confirm>whether or not it had been snagged as an FA, acted in good faith.>
Meh, it's pretty difficult to tell without actually trying the route. I browsed a little way through the comments and saw a disturbing number of seppos using the same bullshit arguments which get thrown around here. Crappy old bolts and potential groundfalls on a route might be safety issues. Removing the requirement to place natural pro on a mixed climb is a convenience issue. My tolerance for sportfaggots framing a convenience issue as a safety issue is pretty much zero. If someone starts talking about how bolts are needed next to good gear slots in order to "make the route safe", they've just lost my respect and any chance that I'll pay much attention to the subsequent shit flowing from their mouth.

True ODH, (seppos are much less ethically flexible than Aussies) there's also been a change in how pitons are seen, in the bad old days they were seen as super ethical (not-bolts). Particularly in terms of new aid routes on El Cap, as pitons forced you to follow lines, while bolts didn't. I think they are great when freshly placed, but they weaken rapidly (so you're not doing the same climb as the FA) and replacing them can make a mess.

So I'd argue that replacing pitons with bolts isn't a big difference.

Of course, the FA with toproping may have spaced the pitons and made it pretty runout for an onsight. I'd say that making things runout by heavy pre-inspection is bad, except that anything I ever put up probably falls in that boat.

On 6/08/2013 rolsen1 wrote:>On 6/08/2013 One Day Hero wrote:>(snip)>>issue. My tolerance for sportfaggots framing a convenience issue as a safety>(snip)>>Interesting (and unacceptable) term you chose to use there, why did you use it?

Like many many many others I am a raging homosexual trad climber and I find ODH's terminology inoffensive.

On 6/08/2013 One Day Hero wrote:>Meh, it's pretty difficult to tell without actually trying the route.>I browsed a little way through the comments and saw a disturbing number>of seppos using the same bullshit arguments which get thrown around here.>Crappy old bolts and potential groundfalls on a route might be safety issues.>Removing the requirement to place natural pro on a mixed climb is a convenience>issue.

I'm not arguing for all bolts (there are still quite a few I want to pull out) though given the climb had no known repeats in the last 25 years attests to the fact that it was pretty freaking crazy (respect) and just maybe, unprotect-able in its current form.

I mean, some of Mikl's climbs have seen repeats and they're pretty out there protection wise;)

On 6/08/2013 mikllaw wrote:>True ODH, (seppos are much less ethically flexible than Aussies) there's>also been a change in how pitons are seen, in the bad old days they were>seen as super ethical (not-bolts). Particularly in terms of new aid routes>on El Cap, as pitons forced you to follow lines, while bolts didn't. I>think they are great when freshly placed, but they weaken rapidly (so you're>not doing the same climb as the FA) and replacing them can make a mess.>>>So I'd argue that replacing pitons with bolts isn't a big difference.>>(snip)

I accept that logical thinking up to the point where the removal of the piton does not leave any sane protection possibility (includes near vicinity) other than using a bolt.
If there is any clean aid or modern protection option (no matter how fiddly to place), then the use of a bolt is a retrograde step.

The onus is on first ascentionists of natural lines to be particularly prudent in their use of bolts, and only to do so knowing that any bolt potentially opens the future door for others to try and justify more on the climb or sometimes other climbs in the near area.

The use of bolts on faces where trad protection can't be placed, to create climbing lines on otherwise uprotectable but usable features, also has a long and proud history. Present day angst over bolts really only becomes an issue when those concepts / 'lines' become blurred.

On the pitons 'weaken rapidly' theme, this is not always true depending on many factors, but certainly happens often enough to create justifiable concern.
~> I shall have to source some stainless steel pitons and notch them for glue...
Heh, heh, heh.

Re original topic;
The crux of those threads is this portion of a post by Chris Weidner;

I've enjoyed a friendly dialogue with Thom Byrne (first ascentionist). He has asked me to remove 5 of the 8 protection bolts I placed on Archangel and to keep my new two-bolt anchor intact. I will do this as soon as I can (snip)

There is one instance at Arapiles where a piton should be replaced by a bolt and that is Snowblind. I fell off the upper crack and 2 cams I thought were good ripped out and the old piton pulled me up one metre off the deck and I kicked the belayer in the head. Apparently this piton has pulled out in the past. I heard that it was retrobolted because the piton has been known to fall out. But in the interests of preserving history and the trad ethic, the bolt was removed and the piton replaced. Could someone please clarify whether this instance of retrobolting/chopping is accurate. By the way, we used pitons quite alot in the 80's when things got a bit thin and hard and never placed bolts. However we always removed them afterwards, mainly because we didn't want to leave a good piton behind, but also because we assumed that anyone wanting to repeat the route would have their own pitons - most climbers had a rack of pins in those days.

I was upside down at the end of the fall, and a swinging leg hit him in the head. Anyway, what do people think of the siutation with Snowblind? Should the piton be replaced (again) with a bolt? Luckily it held me, but If the piton rips out as it has done in the past, someone will die on this climb.

On 7/08/2013 Tastrad wrote:>Anyway, what do people think of the siutation with Snowblind?

I dunno, Snowblind is pretty soft at the grade and I've never even felt vaguely like I might fall off it. Also, I reckon all that grippy dolorite has given you excessive faith in the bomberness of cams. You can get a couple of wires in after the peg which ain't failing ever.

However, with that bit of slander out of the way, it does seem a tad silly to persevere with a less than optimal fixed peg given that the preceding bit of gear is a bolt anyway. If you are going to add a bolt, please make it a less visually offensive one than the giant ring which was used last time (hint: full sheath dynabolts can be removed without damaging the rock, therefore reducing the permanent impact of any future bolt war)

On 7/08/2013 Tastrad wrote:>There is one instance at Arapiles where a piton should be replaced by a>bolt and that is Snowblind. I fell off the upper crack and 2 cams I thought>were good ripped out and the old piton pulled me up one metre off the deck>and I kicked the belayer in the head. Apparently this piton has pulled>out in the past. I heard that it was retrobolted because the piton has>been known to fall out. But in the interests of preserving history and>the trad ethic, the bolt was removed and the piton replaced. Could someone>please clarify whether this instance of retrobolting/chopping is accurate.>By the way, we used pitons quite alot in the 80's when things got a bit>thin and hard and never placed bolts. However we always removed them afterwards,>mainly because we didn't want to leave a good piton behind, but also because>we assumed that anyone wanting to repeat the route would have their own>pitons - most climbers had a rack of pins in those days.

I can confirm that is an accurate story. Someone fell, pulled a block off (with their trad gear), decked, broke their leg, a Nati local asked if i could place a bolt to replace the now removed piton, I placed it, then another local removed it, bashed in another piton nearby and that is the current state.

I find the action of clipping a piton not nearly stimulating enough, Neils onto something here!! a piton that wont rust, wont loosen and wont fail, with a special bracket that can slot over it because lets face it, clipping rings is for what was it?? sportfaggots. Yes, old pitons are for sportfaggots I do believe.